If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Still, I'm not really seeing the point of this. Any serious storage solution is going to use a caching mechanism for hot data.

And how will you cache if you donīt keep track the hot data ? Hot data tracking can be used both for caching and hot data migration.

Originally Posted by johnc

And it makes no sense in ordinary desktop use as a user concerned about performance would just use an SSD, where all accesses perform equally.

The majority of Linux systems are not desktops. My personal fileserver at home has around 7 TB of data, that would be pretty expensive with just SSDs, my guess is that less than 10% of my data is "active", so hot data migration of these 10% to SSD would be ideal for me.

The majority of Linux systems are not desktops. My personal fileserver at home has around 7 TB of data, that would be pretty expensive with just SSDs, my guess is that less than 10% of my data is "active", so hot data migration of these 10% to SSD would be ideal for me.

QFT. I have similar data use, most of those TB of data are media files (movies, pictures, software iso files). The difference between 0.1ms and 750ms access times to them are basically unnoticeable (in fact, I'm planning to migrate to a MAID as I can live with a 10 second initial access time for a 90 minute movie...). My mail archive or DE profile files are completely different matter...

A file system that was able to migrate data automagically would be a killer feature for any file server, IMNSHO.